Without a bogeyman like "man-made" global warming, the Left has no excuse for raising taxes and establishing new global regulations to interfere more and more in the marketplace and with industry. Which is what they have ALWAYS really wanted.
To bad the facts disprove their idiotic hypothesis. FACTS HERE AND HERE. IN A NUTSHELL: the sky ain't falling.
To bad the facts disprove their idiotic hypothesis. FACTS HERE AND HERE. IN A NUTSHELL: the sky ain't falling.
As I've mentioned before, I really appreciate the Lomborg article, since his position is very close to mine. As he succinctly states in that article: "The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. "
ReplyDeleteSo much for global warming being an "idiotic hypothesis" according to the "facts". Your own sources support it unequivocally.
The Christopher Monckton article and accompanying data is much more true to your form. It is an article written by someone with no scientific degree. Monckton's scientific qualifications are that he is a former journalist, a Viscount, and that he created the Eternity puzzle.
He trots out several old arguments, such as:
"Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks."
This of course, neglects Solanki's actual conclusions, such as "we estimate statistically which fraction of the framatic temperature rise after [1970] could be due to the influence of the Sun. We show that at least in the most recent past (since about 1970) the solar influence on climate cannot have been significant"
Another nice example can be seen in his claim that, "The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious". In actual truth, there were many conclusions by the report, but almost all were in favor of anthropogenic global warming.
Shelley,
ReplyDeleteWhy not try to deal with the specific arguments pro & con, instead of resorting to a cheap ad hominem insult.
And Monckton is a Viscount, not a Baron.
i do not argue b y appealing to authority or by ad himnem attack.
ReplyDeletejust the facts.
if you are a leftist using so-called man-made greenhouse gases as a way to advocate green taxes/regulations, then as far as the facts go: READ'EM AN' WEEP.
shelley: you forgot to attack lomborg.
ReplyDeletePlease don't attack Lomborg, as I have pointed out, he's one of the most sensible voices in this entire debate. As I quoted him above, he is a person that recognizes that there is a real man-made problem, but doubts many of the proposed solutions. He's no partisan hack or bizarre denier of science, like the author of this post.
ReplyDeletelombiorg has a phd in polisci and statistics, not ecololgy/bio/geo anything.
ReplyDeletehe has proven that the costs of kyoto-like tax/regulation regimes would do BUPKUS.
Yes, as you've proclaimed, Lomborg has the facts. Global warming is a real problem and is caused by human emissions. He is also correct that Kyoto is a misguided solution to the problem. I'm so glad that you've found someone convincing for you to believe that global warming is not a hoax as you've often proclaimed.
ReplyDeletei trust lomborg on the idiocy of kyotolike regimes. not on the basic science.
ReplyDeletethere is no proof man-made gases are the major casue or primary cause of the current trend. it might be a factor, and it might be the only factor we might be able to control. so some reduction is okay IFF the regimes enforcing them are not draconian.
there is proof that global-warming is natural. and there are dispositive facts, too: the fact is that mm gh gases have steadily risen but global temps have not. this proves that other factors are major and that they are NOT steady.
for all you know, joe: the globe might start cooling next year.
BTW: i still dislike you. it's personal. i know many green nuts like you, and most are not so disagreeable. ypou ae a boring pest. wake up. you dpon;t have to be a dupe of the left. i was raised by commies, but became free of that failed ideology. you can too.
i trust lomborg on the idiocy of kyotolike regimes. not on the basic science.
ReplyDeleteWell, you were the one who stipulated his article as "FACTS".
"there is no proof man-made gases are the major casue or primary cause of the current trend."
This leads me to ask for the 20th time, what would constitute proof? You really, really have a hard time answering that, don't you.
"this proves that other factors are major and that they are NOT steady."
Yes, other factors are major and they do fluctuate. NO ONE DISPUTES THIS. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a significant factor as well, and it's only going up, not fluctuating yearly. Thus there are still cycles, ebbs, and flows, but each temperature peak is higher than the last and each valley not as deep.
"i was raised by commies, but became free of that failed ideology. you can too."
You view every issue through the prism of your failed relationship with your parents. You can never let go of the past, grow up, and evaluate things on your own; it's always a reaction to your childhood.
"for all you know, joe: the globe might start cooling next year."
I would consider a global average yearly temperature (absent some obvious global event like a major volcano eruption) below the average from 1900 to 2000 to be proof that manmade global warming from CO2 emissions is vastly overblown. What is a similar event that would convince you that it was largely correct? If the next year's global temperature is the hottest on record?